coco_canuck wrote:I don't have a problem with selecting 19-20 year olds, and I don't have an issue with players committed to the NCAA.

One concern I do have is necessarily drafting for need outside the first two rounds, and specifically drafting college players without giving other leagues much consideration.

Every team makes some selections based on a specific need, but there needs to be a fine line between need and best player available. Same goes for preferring college players, if there is say an OHL kid who projects much better than the best available college player, then I'd rather go with the OHL kid than reaching for someone else.

Since we don't sit at the draft table, it's difficult to say why they may have passed on someone else over the kid they picked in a given round, but Gillis has been mostly open with his draft strategy, and at the moment I'm not completely sold.

It certainly seems to imply an interesting aspect of the Canucks philosophy, insofar as it seems to suggest that they believe that the disparity in raw upside - or at least, their ability to suss that out from a group of hundreds of potential selections - amongst the prospects outside the top 100-120 in a given year is less important than the development path a given player takes.

I don't know if it's true or not frankly, but I do see the reasoning in taking players whose commitment to college hockey give you an extra couple of years of development before you have to commit to them (or allow them to walk).

Between that and taking some bigger and more mature players in the early rounds hopefully the Canucks are able to strike a nice balance between players who can contribute soon and players who with enough growth will fill the cupboard in a few seasons.

Fred wrote:The problem with the NCAA is relatively few games, competition iffy, and frankly the need to study. I understand they train hard off and on ice. Every day they both have strenuous work outs in the realms of 3 hours. But they only play weekends. Some NCAA teams are strong others are over aged Junior A, including the no fighting rule ( thrown out of game ). This is why the Canucks wanted to take Patrick White out of college, poor program, poor coaching. The CHL on the other hand is a grind and competitive and tough.

Are you thinking of Jordan Schroeder? If I recall the Canucks wanted him out because they thought he was ready for pro hockey and were not enamoured with the program he was in. I don't recall them ever trying to get Patrick White out of school, likely because he was a terrible prospect.

As for the rest of your post, I don't see any specific reason to believe that the NCAA is an inferior destination for project players, to the tune of being worth giving up half of your window to gauge their worthiness of a pro contract (as I already mentioned to black ace).

No the canucks tried numerous times to get White out of the NCAA, but he wasn't interested. Mind you in his case I doubt if it would have made much difference. The Canucks did make mention that they believed the coach was poor on that team & that's not true of all programes. It was the same reason MG wanted Connauton and Tanev to leave school !!! which kinda contradicts what MG is saying now. Some schools do better jobs than others. Mtl first round choice Louis Leblanc came out from Harvard early while McNally is hanging in at Harvard. I remember Louis Leblanc saying his season didn't start until I believe November. The WCHA is thought to be stronger than the ECHA. So it's tough to relate one to the other.Red Bereson at U of Mich is thought of very highly for instance.

Orcasfan wrote:It may have been instigated especially as a response to this year's overall weakness in the draft class after the first 10-20 kids.

I think Gillis said something along those lines, but he didn't really elaborate in the interviews I heard.

It's not necessarily a bad strategy if it's a one off.

But the idea of drafting for need after the 2nd round is something he did at least last year as well.

Orcasfan wrote:There also seems to be a definite bias from some folks comparing the development potential through the CHL and college.

There is a bias against College players, and Gillis is right in exploiting that under-tapped market in various ways.

My only concern is over emphasis in one area.

I'm still not sure that the lack of WHL players drafted by the Canucks is due to a specific philosophy, but it is starting to become a bit of a trend.

dbr wrote:It certainly seems to imply an interesting aspect of the Canucks philosophy, insofar as it seems to suggest that they believe that the disparity in raw upside - or at least, their ability to suss that out from a group of hundreds of potential selections - amongst the prospects outside the top 100-120 in a given year is less important than the development path a given player takes.

I don't know if it's true or not frankly, but I do see the reasoning in taking players whose commitment to college hockey give you an extra couple of years of development before you have to commit to them (or allow them to walk).

Between that and taking some bigger and more mature players in the early rounds hopefully the Canucks are able to strike a nice balance between players who can contribute soon and players who with enough growth will fill the cupboard in a few seasons.

Like all drafts we won't know for several years.

Good post.

As I said above, I'm only concerned about Gillis confining himself within a certain ideology, and thus potentially missing out on other opportunities.

Like you said, we won't know for several years, and I do like that management is looking for an edge, but we need more blue-chip prospects for the future, so any new strategies with drafting will have important consequences.

Next season we may see some of Gillis' prospects make the jump, and that would cast a more positive light on his drafting record, but so far we're still waiting for a couple of players to break out, and that needs to change.

I guess the question should be asked after this weekend how come MG is now telling us that we should park draft picks in college "to develop" when in 2009 he told us they encouraged Connauton to join the major junior ranks in hopes of bettering his progress. He accordingly signed with the Vancouver Giants of the WHL on July 29, 2009. And in the case of Tanev "Tanev signed as an undrafted free agent with the Canucks, foregoing his final three years of college hockey eligibility."

Depends on the situation. I think in Schroeder's case, they felt that he had outgrown his environment and needed to go to the 'A' to progress. As for Connauton, I think it was the school and coach under which he played that caused them to persuade Connauton to go to the Giants. IMO, it's all a case-by-case basis.

The key with drafting college kids is it gives you more time for them to show if their late bloomers before you have to start offering contracts. Players will develop at their own pace, and I think college allows them the time to better show what they are. Some schools and conferences are better than others, or some players may fit in better in some programs than others, but at least you have time and the options to persuade the player to change environments. College kids can go to CHL, but not the other way around.

Lancer maybe you're right in fact I'm sure you're right, case by case. But what I question is MG broad sweeping statements when he knows what he's saying is not true. Now you have posters telling us wow that's smart thing to do completely giving him a pass on his previous philosophy. Some posters tell us "well we'll just have to wait and see" and yet when confronted with what did happen in the past they over look it. Maybe convenient blindness

It's absolutely not "kinda contradictory" that saying the option to watch a player for four years is a valuable tool when selecting a player to (hopefully) develop into an NHLer, and then to encourage the ones who are ready for pro hockey, or even those who are not but are also not benefitting enough from the college ranks to leave that system.

I give you enough credit to assume you're being intentionally obtuse in claiming that it is, although that just adds to the irony of you accusing others of "convenient blindness."

when i look at GMMG's drafting philosophy i am led to believe that he..."has no philosophy"...i think its mostly about dazzling us with bullshit...what GM is their right fucking mind wastes drafts on the la Senza league(US College hockey) and passes up WHL players...he has fucked up and need an excuse...we hear it in the business world all the time...bafflegab...i fail to see what great idea his drafting spawns from...tried and true works 99% of the time so i cannot help but stress about picking outside the box all the time...i hope he has a few aces up his sleeve or in a couple of years we is gonna be fucked...as for Bjugstad...another La Senza guy...

I have to say put me down as doubtful. Delorme has in the past come up with some quality picks ( Kesler, Sedins, Schneider) all star quality but the direction seems to have been changed. I watched Gaunce the other evening and I doubt if there's current roster players that has less quickness in the first 3 steps than this guy. Now he may mitagate these flaws by maintaining motion or a high hockey IQ but I was kind of shocked truth be told. LaBate had quicker feet and is a bigger players for instance.

One thing in MG favour is the NHL did themselves veer off course with allowing more grabbing and hold ups. When MG took Hodgson and Schroeder the NHL was in full pursuit of clutch free hockey which did make a team head towards smaller players. He has had to re-adjust his preference, but other teams have handled it.

the Dogsalmon wrote:when i look at GMMG's drafting philosophy i am led to believe that he..."has no philosophy"...i think its mostly about dazzling us with bullshit...what GM is their right fucking mind wastes drafts on the la Senza league(US College hockey) and passes up WHL players...he has fucked up and need an excuse...we hear it in the business world all the time...bafflegab...i fail to see what great idea his drafting spawns from...tried and true works 99% of the time so i cannot help but stress about picking outside the box all the time...i hope he has a few aces up his sleeve or in a couple of years we is gonna be fucked...as for Bjugstad...another La Senza guy...

Why should his approach to each draft be consistent? Each draft is unique, as are the situations the team is in. This year and two years ago were shallow pools and they were treated differently than when there are deep pools.